Wakilii

Kibeedi v Hotel Triangle Limited & Another (Miscellaneous Application 128 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 737 · 2024 Application Granted — Contempt Found AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for contempt of court arising from non-compliance with judgment in HCCS No. 027 of 2011
Decision
1st Respondent found in contempt and ordered to pay exemplary damages and fine for disobeying court order to remit NSSF contributions

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The High Court held that the 1st Respondent was in contempt of court for failing to comply with a 2019 judgment ordering remittance of NSSF contributions for 58 former employees. The Court found that all three elements of contempt were established: existence of a lawful order, the contemnor's knowledge of the order, and failure to comply. The application was granted with orders for exemplary damages of UGX 200,000,000 plus 23% interest and a fine of UGX 5,000,000 to be deposited in court.

Outcome

1st Respondent found in contempt and ordered to pay exemplary damages and fine for disobeying court order to remit NSSF contributions

Facts

In 2019, judgment was entered in HCCS No. 027 of 2011 in favour of 58 former employees of Hotel Triangle Ltd and Brisk Recreation Ltd, represented by Kibeedi Hussein. The judgment directed the 1st Respondent to remit to NSSF all unpaid statutory remittances for each plaintiff for the period December 1996 to September 2008. The applicants subsequently checked their NSSF accounts and discovered that no remittances had been made. Their lawyers wrote to the 1st Respondent's Managing Director, Mr. Mutaasa Kafeero, informing him of the obligation under the judgment, but received no response. The applicants then brought this contempt application in 2023. The respondents were served but rejected service and failed to appear or file a response, leading to the matter proceeding ex parte.

Issues

  1. Whether the 1st Respondent is in contempt of court?
  2. What are the remedies available to the Applicants?

Orders

  • Application granted.
  • 1st Respondent found to be in contempt of court.
  • 1st Respondent to pay exemplary damages of UGX 200,000,000 (Two Hundred million shillings) to the Applicants.
  • Exemplary damages to carry interest at 23% per annum from the date of this ruling until payment in full.
  • 1st Respondent to deposit a fine of UGX 5,000,000 (Five million shillings) into court.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the Applicants.

Rules and key headnotes

Contempt of Court — Elements Required for Finding of Contempt
For conduct to amount to contempt of court, three elements must be established: (1) existence of a lawful order, (2) the potential contemnor's knowledge of the order, and (3) the potential contemnor's failure to comply with or disobedience of the order.
Contempt of Court — Nature and Purpose of Court Orders
A court order is not a mere suggestion, opinion, or point of view but a directive issued after much thought and with circumspection that must be complied with in all circumstances. It is not for a party to choose whether or not to comply with a court order; the order must be complied with in totality, subject to the party's right to challenge the order in a lawful way.
Contempt of Court — Knowledge of Court Order
Where judgment is delivered in the presence of counsel for a party, that party is deemed to be fully aware of their obligations under the judgment through their counsel, establishing the element of knowledge required for contempt proceedings.
Contempt of Court — Refusal to Comply Without Lawful Challenge
To disobey a court order or offer no explanation for non-compliance on the basis that such order is null, irregular, not acceptable, or not pleasant to the party concerned, without challenging it through lawful means, constitutes contempt of court.
Exemplary Damages — Purpose and Nature in Contempt Cases
Exemplary damages are punitive in nature, representing a sum of money awarded in addition to compensatory damages to punish the defendant and deter repetition of the wrongful act. The primary purpose of contempt remedies is to preserve the effectiveness and sustenance of the power of courts.
Exemplary Damages — Distinction from Aggravated Damages
Exemplary damages are distinct from aggravated damages. Exemplary damages are penal, not consolatory, and are awarded to punish or deter, whereas aggravated damages take into account the motives and conduct of the defendant in aggravating the injury to the plaintiff for purposes of assessing compensatory damages.
Exemplary Damages — Award in Contempt Proceedings for Non-Compliance with Employment-Related Orders
Where a party is found in contempt for failure to comply with a court order to remit statutory employment contributions, the court may award substantial exemplary damages to punish impunity and compensate for the delay and injustice suffered by applicants, with such damages carrying interest from the date of the ruling until payment in full.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (13)

  • Barbra Nambi v Raymond Lwanga (Miscellaneous Application No. 213 of 2017)
  • Nsagirano v Col. Kaka Bagyenda and Another [2021] UGHC 23
  • Housing Finance Bank Ltd and Another v Edward Musisi (Miscellaneous Application No. 158 of 2010)
  • Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd vs Commission General Uganda Revenue Authority
  • Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd v Commissioner General Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 42 of 2010)
  • Megha Industries Ltd v Comfoam Uganda Ltd (HCMC No. 21 of 2014)
  • Hon. Sitenda Sebalu v Secretary General of the East African Community (Reference No. 8 of 2012)
  • People vs Krz 35 Mich App. 643, 656 (1971)
  • Mega Industries (U) Ltd v Comfoam Uganda Ltd (MC No. 21 of 2014)
  • Butterworth's v Butterworths & Englefield [1920]P 126
  • Rookes vs Bernard [1946] ALL ER 367
  • Ntabgoba vs. Editor in Chief of the New Vision [2004]2 EA 234
  • Obongo v Kisumu Council, [1971] EA 91

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Kibeedi v Hotel Triangle Limited & Another (Miscellaneous Application 128 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 737 (26 June 2024)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.